metroidfandomcom-20200222-history
Wikitroid:Requests for Comment
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ __TOC__ This forum is for discussion regarding policies, rules, procedure, guidelines, and the like. All users are welcome and asked to comment, including anonymous users. However, only registered users should create a new topic (the instructions for doing so can be found here). Archived sections are surrounded by a thick blue border and should not be edited. If you wish to reopen an archived debate, please ask an active administrator to do so. ---- Implementation of non-canon, theoretical and spoiler templates It has come to my attention recently that Wikitroid has become notorious for its large amount of speculation, too much non-canonical information (that Hellkaiserryo12 causes you to destroy a large amount of info on the page and/or mark it as real-life.) and too many spoilers that are unmarked. The latter issue has a policy, but they aren't marked. This is why I have created this RfC, to question whether or not we should implement templates for these purposes. For example: "Noncanon" template noncanon info here "Endnoncanon" template The templates would add the page to a category for "Articles with non-canonical information". The same would go for theories, which would get a category for "Articles incorporating theory". The spoiler template wouldn't, though, as is standard with wikis incorporating the feature. *'Question:' Should Wikitroid implement templates and categories to indicate articles with non-canonical information, theories and spoilers? *'Possible Postitions:' Agree (if you would like these templates to be implemented), Neutral (if you are not sure), or Disagree (if you disagree that these templates should be implemented). *'Default (no consensus):' The templates/categories' status as a necessity is unmodified. One last point: don't accuse me of starting the C&C RfC all over again with the noncanon part. It's supposed to be an extension of C&C. --[[User:RoyboyX|''R''oy''b''oy'']][[User talk:RoyboyX|''X]] 16:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC) Discussion *'Disagree': Not exactly sure how to format an answer with no preceeding ones, so I apologize if I needed to make a section or anything. Anyway, it's simple: We have a Metroid Fanon wiki. Speculation and theories and fanfic bullshit can go there. It's too much of a slippery slope otherwise. How do we decide which theories are too ridiculous and which are okay? If we require everything to be cited or drawn directly from the games, we avoid any technical confusions as well as avoiding confusing readers. No need to add new templates, no need to look unprofessional by becoming a soapbox for every dumbass with a crazy theory... Noncanon stuff, definitely. Big-Time and Smash Bros and Captain N? Those shouldn't have the same 'weight' as real Metroid stuff. So I'm not really sure if that's an agree or a disagree. It's kind of both, since part of your idea has merit and the rest is ridiculous. Dazuro 19:32, October 17, 2010 (UTC) **'Comment': Can you name such examples of theories? And why is everyone obsessed with professionalism! Do you want to make us bland and outcasts because we have almost no sociality? We'd be unwelcoming. According to Piratehunter, the Assassin's Creed Wiki's users are very nice, and I think we ought to start being like them. Of course, they are overly social, and I'm not asking for that here. Just to be a little like other wikis and to be more interactive. After all, no personal interaction means no civility. As for the theories, we would only use theories based on evidence in games or related media. Everyone's a critic. --[[User:RoyboyX|''R''oy''b''oy'']][[User talk:RoyboyX|''X]] 19:40, October 17, 2010 (UTC) *'Disagree with RfC as it is written' - What is the definition of non-canonical information? --[[User:FastLizard4|'FastLizard4']]{ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 23:32, October 19, 2010 (UTC) :*'Reply' - If there are sections for non-canonical manga, SSB, whatever, then they have a template indicating where they start, and where they end. Different templates, obviously, like here. --[[User:RoyboyX|''R''oy''b''oy'']][[User talk:RoyboyX|''X]] 23:56, October 19, 2010 (UTC) :*'Mildly Disagree'- Speculation, theory, and non-canon can mean a lot of different things. I would instead support an additional "extrapolation" template, for things like explanations of inconsitancies, reasonable possibilities, and connections between things in the game and real-world science/history. I would also want to make sure there is a strong distinction between reasonable and baseless speculation.--AdmiralSakai 00:20, October 20, 2010 (UTC) *'Comment' - Just to clarify the non-canon, it would be an extension of the C&C policy. --[[User:RoyboyX|''Р''oй''б''oй''X]] (Talk • • UN) 17:10, February 13, 2011 (UTC) *'Agree''' - In that case I change my vote to Agree. "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 17:25, February 13, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' - Okay... people, I'm going to address a small detail. Stop adding comments that say "Mildly Disagree" or "Disagree with RfC as written" or "Somewhat Agree". The possible position are traditionally placed at the head of the RfC for a reason, and in this case they are set as either Agree, Disagree, or Neutral. If you "slightly" disagree with the RfC issue, then state as such in your description that follows your vote. --[[User:Piratehunter|'ا'ل'ق'ر'ا'ص'ن'ة'ه'ن'ت'ر']]{ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) 17:35, February 13, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment- 'What do all of you believe to be a reasonable "expiration date" for spoilers? (i.e., when should we remove spoiler templates from content). It would seem somewhat unreasonable to take up space with a warning to protect players from, in an extreme example, the knowledge that Samus Aran is female, in the event that they have not played the original Metroid. (That was something of a run-on sentance...) ''"My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai]], and I approve this message."'' 19:48, February 13, 2011 (UTC) *'Discuss' - Never. There may be readers who are new to Metroid and want to look up information on it. They would be there to warn them, regardless of game. If they read on, then fine, their loss. We warned them. And there's no need to mark Samus' gender as a spoiler. We all pretty much know she's a girl anyway. --[[User:RoyboyX|''Р''oй''б''oй''X]] (Talk • • UN) 19:56, February 13, 2011 (UTC) *'Agree'''- Somewhat. I would like us to define exactly what material is non-canon before a template is implemented (that is, if the idea goes ahead). Not so excited about theories and spoiler templates, they don't really link in to this RfC. However, I am somewhat against both because: Theory templates encourage speculation and an encyclopedia really shouldn't contain speculation from opinions. We have to remain professional. Yes I know you may find that stupid or whatever RBX, but trying to remain objective which is what we strive for would be damaged by adding fan-theories. If it is implemented, I would like to see it used vary sparingly and not on every page where something relating to the topic is left ambiguous. For spoilers, the whole wiki is one big spoiler, I don't like the idea because defining spoilers would be much more difficult than defining non-canon material. You couldn't really apply a general rule as each bit of information that could be a spoiler would have to be debated. Also, what about Trivia? Trivia contains many spoilers and theories. Seperating them and so on would take a long time and be labourious. Do you really thing spoiler templates are necessary? The only other place I have seen them in use is Zeldapedia, where the only spoilers are really the final boss or antagonist due to the recycling of material in the games. [[User:Hellkaiserryo12|''Hell''Kaiserryo12]]ADMIN] (Talk• ) 19:07, February 18, 2011 (UTC) *'Discuss' - I meant strongly believed theories and not just every single one we have. And spoilers would only go on plots but not certain points. For example: template Queen Metroid info spoiler For any newbies to Metroid that are reading here we need to warn them. As I said, we warned them with the templates being there, but if they go on down, it's not our problem, we warned them, they didn't heed it and they spoiled themselves. --[[User:RoyboyX|''Р''oй''б''oй''X]] (Talk • • UN) 19:12, February 18, 2011 (UTC) Descriptive Names As the U-# system has expanded, users have begun using short descriptive passages found within manuals, developer interviews, and strategy guides in addition to proper names for articles. However, treating these descriptors identically to proper names has proven largely unsuccessful and somewhat confusing. Therefore, I have drawn up a rough outline of a definition of descriptive names and some specific rules for their use: A descriptive name is defined as: ''any' 'a'rticle name consisting entirely of simple English words '(uncapitalized) and other subject names, and arraigned in accordance with conventional grammar rules.'' #As it is sometimes difficult to determine exactly where the "name" portion of a descriptive name ends, to prevent the names from becoming too cumbersome they should be of the least length necessary for them to make grammatical sense, to provide an indication of the identity of the subject, and to delineate it from other, similar subjects. For instance, the "massive" in "massive tentacle" would normally be removed, as it does not convey much information regarding the identity of the subject in question. However, it is required to separate the massive tentacle from the much smaller Leviathan tentacle. This applies to removing words from the middle of names as well as those at the very beginning or the very end. #Descriptive names must be treated within text as conventional nouns, not proper nouns. In particular, they should be given definite articles such as "the", "a", etc. #If the descriptor does not meet the same standards of professional voice that are applied to article text, it cannot be used as a name. The only incident I have seen of a name that would be rejected under this provision is a "communal" ULF that was described as "white squiggly things". #The ordering, conjugation, and other such aspects of descriptive names can be altered to match conventional English language and professional voice, provided that the basic meaning of the descriptor remains the same. #Descriptive names are to be identified as such by placing a "descriptive name" template at the head of the article. Seeing debate on the inclusion of templates, I have decided to restore that section to its default state (no templates) until such time as a conclusion is acchieved). *'''Question: Should the policy outlined above be implemented as it applies to descriptive names? *'Possible Positions: Agree'- if you agree with implementing the policy as it stands.' Neutral-' Undecided or unsure. Disagree- You are opposed to implementing the policy as it stands. Suggestions on improving the policy are always welcome from adherents of any position. *'Default '(No consensus): There will not be an official policy towards descriptive names. Comment: Difficult to tell what the Agree/Disagree positions are. I'd like to see descriptive names kept, maybe with template disclaimers. ChozoBoy (Talk/ ) 23:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC) : '''Comment': The names would of course be kept (in fact, I am hoping that the rules outlined here would allow a wider latitude in terms of the subjects that could be named using them), and although I had not considered a template necessary I would certainly not be at all opposed to one. "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai]], and I approve this message."'' 23:31, March 17, 2011 (UTC) Disagree: Apparently you have a vendetta for size types in names. "If those names aren't used then we can't use them. You ought to know that rule by now..." And can we just, like, find a name for something and make it have no template at all? If developers would just name the goddamn things then we wouldn't be having this conundrum. Fan names don't solve the problem of confusing readers at all, you say? They will know what an Omega Fusion Suit or SR227 is. Other wikis, such as Zeldapedia, do not have Unknown Name systems. They instead have a huge thing at the top of the article saying UNOFFICIAL NAME and the people of that sight choose a fitting name for the page. If they find an official name, great, they use it. I wouldn't name ULF 12 Semisentient organic structure but I would name ULF 13 Parasitic fungus, and I did. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 23:59, March 17, 2011 (UTC) : Comment: I suppose I do have a "vandetta" for isolated size types in that they are rarely, if ever, necessary to delineate the subject of the article. A "large" Leviathan-class ship is only "large" if there is a "small" Leviathan-class ship, and when there is not it serves only to add an extra word to the article and any links we intend to create. I've little issue with articles such as "big Metroid" and "massive Tentacle", as those need some form of modifier to delineate them from normally-sized versions (which are in fact completely different things). Although I would be happy to participate in a descriptive name system, I feel that we should codify what these names will be before we replace the U-# system with them entirely. If this RfC passes, I will immediately write one to replace the U-# system. : You will have to debate the template issue with ChozoBoy, as I am entirely neutral in that regard. "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 00:11, March 18, 2011 (UTC) Agree: I think we need some guidlines for these names. Some of them can get a bit ridiculous. [[User:Hellkaiserryo12|''Hell''Kaiserryo12]]ADMIN] (Talk• ) 12:05, March 20, 2011 (UTC) Comment: 'One possible solution to the template issue is to forgo the template and simply put the bolded name in quotation marks. That may or may not work, but I would like it to be considered. (It also makes me think of a quote, possibly from Dean Stockewll: "You know you have a good compromise when ''both parties walk away feeling screwed".....) "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai]], and I approve this message."'' 13:13, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Comment: We could even do both if we wanted to. My history instructor from last semester used to say, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the reader." ChozoBoy (Talk/ ) 13:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Comment: '''"Never underestimate the stupidity of the reader." This site is truly filled with a bunch of assholes. '''Comment: I agree mostly with what the anon just said. Chozoboy, that was completely inappropriate and unnecessary. Don't act so condescending and arrogant. Complete Supremacy 19:04, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Comment: We are not here to harass ChozoBoy for quoting his history instructor. Please cofine your comments to the topic at hand. CB also makes a valid point that we must be certain to make Wikitroid as understandable and user-friendly as possible, especially given that not all of our readers will be of first-rate intelligence. If RoyBoyX does not object (or objects and is overruled??), I will include the quotation mark provision in the policy. "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 19:37, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Comment: Okay, I am now going to be a very tyrannical monarch at the moment... namely because, one, I am very pissed off for off-wiki reasons, and two, the constant bickering is getting old and thus adding to my pissy mood. To start off, the next goddamn time I see someone say one derogatory, offensive, insulting, or even slightly biased comment, I am blocking you for some random period of time, mirroring the punishment for vandals. I'll tell you if I see it. Secondly, ChozoBoy shut the fuck up with your college shit; no one give a damn about you being a fucking senior in college, and majoring in animation. Go to hell, in short (and no I'm not jealous of you, little boy, I'm a junior in cognitive neuroscience and a teacher of English and foreign languages, so piss off). And as a matter of fact, I do see you as a completely retarded imbecile, so kindly go die, so I can not miss you. And third, exactly what AS said, if a fucking RfC is going on about Article Names, then keep the bloody conversation(s) relevant to Article names. In fact me being the tyrannical monarch I am at this current moment I may decide to strike any comment that is empirically deemed irrelevant or otherwise redundant to the actual purpose of the RfC. Hell I may decide to abuse my power and start blocking [people for use of arrogant attitude(s). You never know, I'm just a tyrannical bitch like that at the moment. In short everyone, shut the fuck up and be "nice". In return, I won't block you, and I may stop bashing you for being retarded idiotic morons, and instead take pity on you. And just for everyone's own good, I strongly suggest that no one says something to me regarding this comment, and just take it into your minds and use it. In other words, read it, and do it. Because people saying something to me is just going to piss me off that much more. Which you will regret. --[[User:Piratehunter|'ا'ل'ق'ر'ا'ص'ن'ة'ه'ن'ت'ر''']]{ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) 20:09, March 21, 2011 (UTC) '''Comment: As for the real matter on hand, I think that descriptors are important when they help distinguish between certain articles, but I don't like the fact that we need a "the" and "a" on every article. It takes up space and newer users when creating links might link to articles that don't exist. Then we have to reprimand said user and fix the problem. While it doesn't take up a lot of time, it isn't efficient. I quite like the ULFs because they're easy to link to and the most professional name that we can give to them. Complete Supremacy 21:52, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Comment: [pointedly ignoring the Piratehunter/Complete Supremacy "debate" and focusing on, for whatever reason, the topic at hand.] I did not mean to suggest that "the" or "a" be added to article titles- that is, as you have said, cumbersome and unnecessary. I was referring to use of descriptors within the articles. That way, users are able to see more clearly that they are not proper names of any sort: for instance, an article with the opening sentance "Big Metroid is an anomaly within the Metroid life cycle..." would recieve a "the". "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 23:47, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Comment: I actually do agree with the point made regarding Big Metroid. The problem I would like to point out however, is that it is named via direct accordance with the Super Metroid Player's Guide. And although I loath the admission of Player Guide details as actual infallible/canon data, it is from the enemy list in the book. --[[User:Piratehunter|'ا'ل'ق'ر'ا'ص'ن'ة'ه'ن'ت'ر''']]{ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) 01:09, March 27, 2011 (UTC) Lower the percentage in the RfA system This RfC was closed at 01:28, July 7, 2011 (UTC) by The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } with the final resolution of keeping the percentage at 80%. '''Please do not modify it. My colleagues and I have discussed how our RfA system is, to put it bluntly, quite bullscheiße. The required percentage of 80% to succeed in the RfA system is the number one hinderance for most people to make it through. My own third attempt would have passed were it not for the percentage, I had more supports tallied than negatives, and yet, it was the percentage that made me fail. In addition, ConstantCabbage's RfA was tied for support and oppose, which, providing he had received more supports, would have certainly made him an admin now. I would like for the percentage to be lowered to 50%. I'd say that, should this RfA pass through, no previous 'violations' should be grandfathered, and maybe my third RfA could possibly be reopened, with all previous voters needing to vote again. *'Question:' Should Wikitroid lower the percentage function in the RfA system from 80% to 50%? *'Possible Postitions:' Agree (if you would like the percentage to be lowered), Neutral (if you are not sure), or Disagree (if you disagree that the percentage should be lowered). *'Default (no consensus):' The percentage is unmodified. One last note: say this RfC has been done out of pure selfishness all you want. I did not make it entirely with my third's failure in mind. I want this to go. Think of it! If we actually had a lot of users who were admins, we'd be unstoppable! Vandalism would not be heard of here! Discussion *'Agree:' As RfC creator. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 00:56, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Disagree:' Community consensus determines who becomes an admin. Percentages don't discriminate. How else would we determine who gets adminship? You want to replace it with what? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 01:03, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Support': I was one of the users that said the RfA system is not the greatest. This is a good example of a good RfA process. RfAs should not be a straight vote count, but rather a decision based on community consensus.Disagree: I misunderstood what Sir Poй was saying. I am not in favour of a straight vote count at all, and if a vote count is necessary, 80% is a good number, not perfect, but better than >50% IMO. Doctor 01:08, June 27, 2011 (UTC) 21:35, June 29, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment:' In response to MG: remove the percentages and leave the tally system. I had 10 supports and 5 opposes but if it wasn't for the fact that I needed 80% support for success then I'd be admin. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 01:12, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Large majorities are needed to determine admin, otherwise we could end up with a split community. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 01:18, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Also, the number of admins has very little to do with the amount of vandalism. It determines how quickly the vandalism is removed. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 01:19, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :*Yes, and number of admins also determines whether or not vandalism is or is not hear of on Wikitroid. Would you rather have more more incidents where you ignore other charges pressed against a user? --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 01:24, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' That is the responsibility of the VSTF to tell a community's admins. If they don't, oh well. Also, how would admins be determined. You said keep the tally system, but never said the determining factor. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 01:31, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :*Look at my third RfA. The odds were all in my favor with the tallies. Ten supports. 5 opposes. 1 or no neutrals iirc. It was just the damn percentage that kept me from getting admin back. So Ripley and Burke, humans are worse, and you do see them f---ing each other over a goddamn percentage. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 01:33, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Roy, I was sorta hoping that you weren't doing this entirely for yourself. But quit using your own RfA as a reason, its proving me otherwise. Also, you still haven't said what we would replace it with. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 01:53, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :*We're removing the percentage, and replacing it entirely with the tally system. I said that 5 times. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 01:54, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' What is the tally system? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 01:55, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :*'Discuss: O.MG.' Look at an RfA, and you'll see the support/oppose/neutral tally, with the support percentage beside it, and a disclaimer saying 80% is required to succeed. The latter part I want gone. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 01:59, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' AND. If we don't determine through percentage how will we? BE SPECIFIC. Are you saying simple majority, best reasons, what? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 02:01, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Simple majority. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 02:03, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Well apparently Dr. Pain thought you meant something along the lines of best reasoning. Simple majority wouldn't have gotten ConstantCabbage promoted, it was a tie in the end, and he hasn't been here in a while. As a matter of fact, he would have only gotten another oppose, as I voted against him, but was too late anyways. I disagree with simple majority for the reason that this could cause major community splits. Half of the community might not be happy with the admin. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 02:09, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' That issue is dealt with after the RfA, but you need to give them time. There's no more ChozoBoy, and I'll shut up about him, and I won't go around destroying pages and files as senselessly as a Terminator. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 02:12, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' For the record, no, I do not support simple majority. That wouldn't even technically be removing the percent: it would just be lowering it from 80% to <50%. I simply think that RfAs should be evaluated on an individual basis. Bureaucrats should determine how heavy the support is, how heavy the oppose is, whether the support and oppose reasons are valid and how valid, and whether or not the candidate in question is capable of the job and needs the tools. See this RfR. There are exactly as many supports as opposes, but since the oppose reasons are stupid and the candidate was qualified and needed the tools, rollback was granted. The result of this RfR being passed was in no way negative and the user used their rollback to revert vandalism when the rest of us weren't around. In conclusion, a vote count is not a good way of determining an RfX. Doctor 02:52, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Disagree'- The 80% rule creates a good safety factor. I for one don't want ''Joe Anyone being able to get ahold of block rights if (s)he has polarized 51% support. Adminship is the closest thing this wiki gets to supreme executive power, and it should be handed out more sparingly. ''"My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 03:01, June 27, 2011 (UTC) **I believe that a simple majority is not what we're going for, (and if it is, my vote is changing to oppose). So tbh, your reasoning has no merit. Doctor 03:05, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' According to the RfC creator it is. EDIT CONFLICT: Does that mean that there won't be more argumentive people in the future? I guarantee you that there are more people that will cause trouble. In my opinion, we have had awfully low standards in the past. I don't believe I was really fit for adminship when Richard first gave me my userrights. I do believe I have become a better admin since then, but still. I'm in favor of being tougher on candidates. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 03:16, June 27, 2011 (UTC) **I will talk to RoyboyX about his intentions of this RfC. If he wants simple majority, I'll oppose him and propose my own RfC. Anyways, if you want to be "tougher" on the candidates, removing the 80% can actually help that, if the bureaucrats in charge have high standards on what passes and what fails. Doctor 03:22, June 27, 2011 (UTC) ***Yeah, you're being tougher on mostly 13 year olds and chasing them off for being so tough. You scare them, you make them cry, you enforce every possible challenge on them. Like I said, we don't have that large of a community. Plus we'll still have all the other rules of having 500 or so edits, being here for a while and such. These percentages are stupid and should go. Also, AdmiralSakai, you just think that if I get admin rights I'll use them to slap editing cuffs on you when you piss me off. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 12:00, June 27, 2011 (UTC) ***To be honest, the thought did cross my mind. Then I remembered that you realy do want to contribute to this wiki even though I take issue with a lot of the things you do in that contribution, and decided that you wouldn't be that personally vindictive. Please don't prove me wrong. I am more worried about this: you aren't "just anyone". You very nearly became an admin within the existing system. I don't particularly like your policies, but you try to be a contributing member of the community. 80% to 50% is an enourmous gap. At the moment we have a small community where trolls troll reliably and leave after a few days, but that may not always be true. I'm worried what else might come in if we lower the bar by such a huge amount. "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 01:14, June 28, 2011 (UTC) *Nothing will, because FL's old rules of having 500 or so edits will still apply. I'm merely in favor of killing %. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 01:28, June 28, 2011 (UTC) **I really feel I must comment. Requirements like "500 edits" and "been here a year" are really dumb as they have nothing to do with RfAs. For example, I was promoted to admin on Donkey Kong Wikia after only a couple of weeks of editing because it was in desperate need of a sysop and I had experience of other wikis. These should be the criteria for judging potential sysops, not edit count or how long one has been on a wiki, though the latter should usually be required anyway except in special cases. Doκτoʀ ''' 03:56, June 28, 2011 (UTC) ***It really isn't about "OH YOU HAVE 500 EDITS" as much as it allows you to get a feel for the character and skillset of the individual by looking through their contributions and interactions with the community. "Will this candidate leave after a month? Does this candidate know what they are doing? Is the candidate a jerk?" Your example is the exception rather than the rule. In cases where there is truly a desperate need of sysops (like your example and my own promotion), requirements are loosened due to the greater immediate need. ***By the way Roy, can you change the RfC description to properly display what you want? You aren't getting rid of the percentage at all, only lowering it to above 50%. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 16:24, June 29, 2011 (UTC) ****Done. --[[User:RoyboyX|Р'o'й'б''''''o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 20:50, June 29, 2011 (UTC) ****Also DP, this is RoyboyX. Poй is just my name translated into Russian. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X''']] (Talk • • UN) 22:17, June 29, 2011 (UTC) *****Yes Royboy, I know. I have a russian sig or two of my own. :P [[User:Dr. Pain 99|Докто'']]рБоль ''' 22:29, June 29, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' While I agree with the premise of lowing it from 80%, 50% is far too low. It leaves room for ties or very close wins/losses percentage wise. Mr. Monkey Spanker 22:22, June 29, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Also, looking at the statistics, 9 out of 16 requests for access passed. That is more than half. One could draw the conclusion either that it is easy to gain rights, or that there aren't that many requests in the first place. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 00:05, June 30, 2011 (UTC) **I hope you realize that as I have said, we do not have a large community since no one really likes Metroid or its femme fatale, and we need more admins as most of the community, regardless of rank, has died (you know what I mean). And I am told by a lot of people (here) that I have the makings of a great admin, my weaknesses are that I am not always willing to discuss stuff. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 00:17, June 30, 2011 (UTC) ***Small communities do not require nearly as many admins as large ones. Also, it isn't that people don't like Metroid, it is that there isn't anything NEW about Metroid. There aren't any upcoming games or anything. The only upcoming Metroid game is the eventual release of Metroid II to the 3DS virtual console. And even that isn't confirmed, just a guess (It'll probably be on the anniversary). The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 00:44, June 30, 2011 (UTC) *No but like some bureaucrats such as the one who dominates you all and has gone inactive for a long while (his name pertains to reptilian creatures who move at superhuman speeds in the fourth dimension) oppose because there is no need for admins at the current time. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 00:57, June 30, 2011 (UTC) **That is a legitimate reason to oppose an RfA. Doctor 01:01, June 30, 2011 (UTC) *So, we getting it lowered or not? Also, testing my new unreadable sig >:D --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 22:43, June 30, 2011 (UTC) **'Comment' So far, you are the only "agree". It doesn't really look like it. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 00:56, July 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Okay how about 60%? Still high but low. --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 01:17, July 1, 2011 (UTC) *75% at the extreme minimum. Although 80% is preferable. "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 20:23, July 1, 2011 (UTC) **Alright seriously 80% is too high. Would you agree that 500 points for an NES game in Virtual Console is too high? --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 20:39, July 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Well, NES games in real life cost 2 dollars each. However these are enhanced with temporary save states (going to the wii menu), usually are less buggy, (at least not crash), and don't require ancient technology. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 02:57, July 2, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Alright, this is going nowhere, so I say close it with the result of no lowered percentage. However, I'd like for my third RfA to be reopened as one of the votes there should be considered void. However, like the talkheader RfC, everyone should have to vote again. --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 00:43, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Notability A large portion of the community feels that certain topics aren’t notable enough to have articles. However, lack of notability is not one of the current criteria for deletion. The point of this RfC is to decide whether certain topics deserve articles and what types of topics are undeserving. Topics that are not deserving of articles should probably be discussed briefly on other articles. Guidelines about what topics wouldn’t deserve articles under this new policy: *Things found in the real world (or real world culture) that are found or mentioned (possibly as comparisons) in the Metroid Universe, but have no special meaning or effect on gameplay. This means things like carbon, epidermis and Bigfoot. This doesn’t include things like water or the cow which have special meaning to the Metroid Universe. *Flora, fauna, and structures that serve as scenery, especially when there is little to no information on the topic. These could potentially be discussed in the article of the area they are found in. *Topics whose articles restate that which is in other articles or could be discussed in other articles without leaving the primary topic or creating large walls of text. Like the former Large lava pit arena article. *Topics who have very low potential to have an article with much more than 3 sentences relevant to Metroid describing it. These would serve as a loose set of guidelines; it is ultimately determined by Request for Deletion and a bit of common sense. There are probably going to be exceptions to this, and are to be made on a case by case basis. *'Question:' Should articles that are not notable enough as determined by these guidelines be deleted or merged with other topics, or left alone? *'Possible Postitions:' Agree (if you would like to implement these guidelines and allow unnotable articles be deleted), Neutral (if you are not sure), or Disagree (if you disagree with these guidelines and do not want to allow these types of articles to be deleted). *'Default (no consensus):' The types of articles mentioned above will be left alone. If I forgot something or worded something badly, please tell me below. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 22:30, November 11, 2011 (UTC) Discussion *'Agree:' As creator. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 22:30, November 11, 2011 (UTC) *'Agree' I was actully trying to see if I could work through AS' list without an RfC, but yeah, I do now agree with this. --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 23:22, November 11, 2011 (UTC)